Im pretty excited..good news is hard to find these days and Obama can bring it.
Maybe those with wind of change refrigerator magnets on door will wake up..I highly doubt it though , hes doing the left thing government can do it better.

Let's see: preventing the mainstream media from slicing and dicing one's speeches into soundbites, requiring live instead of taped interviews to reduce the chances of editing, and pointing voters to actual documents on a Web site instead of depending on someone's alleged summary of them, is "manipulating" the media? No, it's actually doing an end-run around the media and thereby helping the electorate to make an informed choice based on candidates' real positions. This isn't a one-sided issue, regardless of what some would suggest. For those on the right, would they rather have depended on John McCain or, say, Keith Olbermann to tell them what McCain said on a given evening?

Why is the idea of keeping mainstream media from controlling the discussion so troublesome for some folks? Are they so afraid to think and decide for themselves? {Jonathan}

Let's see: preventing the mainstream media from slicing and dicing one's speeches into soundbites, requiring live instead of taped interviews to reduce the chances of editing, and pointing voters to actual documents on a Web site instead of depending on someone's alleged summary of them, is "manipulating" the media? No, it's actually doing an end-run around the media and thereby helping the electorate to make an informed choice based on candidates' real positions. This isn't a one-sided issue, regardless of what some would suggest. For those on the right, would they rather have depended on John McCain or, say, Keith Olbermann to tell them what McCain said on a given evening?

Why is the idea of keeping mainstream media from controlling the discussion so troublesome for some folks? Are they so afraid to think and decide for themselves? {Jonathan}

Then I recall making doctors wear white coats for a photo op at the White House.

And the recent revelation from Sotomayor that she was told what to wear by the White House.

And the "unscripted" press conferences that include preselected questions by reporters who have been invited the day before and escorted to a proper seat.

And Town Hall meetings where those supporting the administration are placed closer to the event (and news crews) than those who are there to protest.

Even Helen Thomas, no friend of the previous administration, accused the current one of trying to "control the media."

hey hey hey left handed friends above relax..its a great thread name.
Better then "Governments buying news"
Now a question to the brilliant 1thing2add,
Do you think you would be provided both sides of the story if Government bailed out media?

Let's see: preventing the mainstream media from slicing and dicing one's speeches into soundbites, requiring live instead of taped interviews to reduce the chances of editing, and pointing voters to actual documents on a Web site instead of depending on someone's alleged summary of them, is "manipulating" the media? No, it's actually doing an end-run around the media and thereby helping the electorate to make an informed choice based on candidates' real positions. This isn't a one-sided issue, regardless of what some would suggest. For those on the right, would they rather have depended on John McCain or, say, Keith Olbermann to tell them what McCain said on a given evening?

This isn't a one sided issue, and I'm sure most politicians would love to avoid having anyone question them. That's exactly what the Obama campaign accomplished to a large degree.

I don't trust the mainstream media anymore than I do politicians, but I find it valuable for them to balance each other out. I'm sure you are aware of the role of the media as watchdogs. When politicians (who tend to promote what is best for them, not what is objective and true) successfully bypass scrutiny, then we are left with a politicians highly massaged and orchestrated message.

Originally Posted by Jonathan I Ezor

Why is the idea of keeping mainstream media from controlling the discussion so troublesome for some folks? Are they so afraid to think and decide for themselves? {Jonathan}

I think you are completely off base here. It isn't a matter of anyone thinking for themselves. Your concept seems to assume that the media are distorting things, but the politician is being honest and truthful. If you don't acknowledge that politicians lie, and omit things in order to pander to particular groups, or to make themselves seem to be something they aren't then you've got a very naive view of the world. I highly doubt that you believe this however.

What you seem to be suggesting is to simply take politicians at their word, and say its a good thing when they avoiding being questioned. That is a formula for disaster in a free society. I am not willing to place blind trust in politicians or the media, which is why the watchdog function is so vital. Of course, that is nearly non-existent, so I guess I'm really hoping for something that is already nearly dead.

Political campaigns goals aren't to tell the truth and be objective--its to get a candidate elected, and while I agree theoretically that voters should be informed, we need news reporters to do more than distribute campaign propaganda.

Regardless of their supposed affiliations the difference between Jim Lehrer and Glenn Beck is that Jim Lehrer is journalist. Glen Beck's show is entertainment.

Hello,

Does it matter whether one is an entertainer or a journalist if the information they are conveying is true? I'm not making a statement about either of those fellows, but isn't the information what is most important?

If Glenn Beck or Jim Lehrer are lying or presenting inaccurate information, that is what matters isn't it? Just because Jim is a newsman doesn't mean he's correct all the time, and just because Glenn Beck is an entertainer doesn't mean he is incorrect.

I'd disagree about the entertainment however. I'm not sure who finds Beck's show entertaining, because if even a fraction of what he says is true, it is anything but entertaining.

It seems to me that rabid partisan types want to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with them, and that's also very dangerous (another is accepting politicians at their word)--for the rest of us. For someone who just wants what they want without regard to law, or any other moderating principle, this is easy--simply disparage those who oppose what you want--regardless of whether they are accurate in what they are saying or not.

Your right. It really is something. When my wife and I flew here for the first time a few years ago to look for a home I wasn't really prepared for how big it was. It always wows me anytime I'm downtown.

If you are speaking of Anita Dunn, then you need to listen to her comments. She was very open about media manipulation. They have found that Fox does not fall to them and as a result they have begun smearing Fox.

Why do conservatives have to lie to make their point? Or should I ask, why do conservatives always have to "manipulate" the message to make their point--hoping we don't actually watch the video and see otherwise.

Let's see: preventing the mainstream media from slicing and dicing one's speeches into soundbites, requiring live instead of taped interviews to reduce the chances of editing, and pointing voters to actual documents on a Web site instead of depending on someone's alleged summary of them, is "manipulating" the media? No, it's actually doing an end-run around the media and thereby helping the electorate to make an informed choice based on candidates' real positions. This isn't a one-sided issue, regardless of what some would suggest. For those on the right, would they rather have depended on John McCain or, say, Keith Olbermann to tell them what McCain said on a given evening?

Why is the idea of keeping mainstream media from controlling the discussion so troublesome for some folks? Are they so afraid to think and decide for themselves? {Jonathan}

Obviously you do not understand what the media, and journalism, is primarily for. It's exactly that, that a Keith Olbermann or a Hannity can take what the government says, turn it on its head, ask questions, probe, develop what if's - get the people thinking and questioning... I think it's very scary that a government can effectively bypass the media and journalists and "communicate" unfettered with the population. Kind of opens some very scary doors, imho.... I have the impression that the only reason that you're comfortable with it, is because "your guys" are in power.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Obviously you do not understand what the media, and journalism, is primarily for. It's exactly that, that a Keith Olbermann or a Hannity can take what the government says, turn it on its head, ask questions, probe, develop what if's - get the people thinking and questioning... I think it's very scary that a government can effectively bypass the media and journalists and "communicate" unfettered with the population. Kind of opens some very scary doors, imho.... I have the impression that the only reason that you're comfortable with it, is because "your guys" are in power.

Micael: Disturbing isn't it, that anyone is for NOT asking questions. Why bother having a news media at all? Let's just take what the politicians are willing to give us on their terms.

I am not kidding when I say I am very concerned about where this is going, and to be fair--this isn't new, but it certainly is prevalent today.

Government controlling media /taking over & assault on fox news is a big step in the wrong direction.
Its crazy that well respected TC lean left off topic forum debaters find it to be no big deal.

love Obama but open your eyes doing so.
If government took your Palm Pre ,BB ,WM phone out of your hand today would you be ok with it.?..if the answer is NO which im sure it is,
Why in the heck would you be ok with government taking free press from you?

Does it matter whether one is an entertainer or a journalist if the information they are conveying is true?

To an extent, it does. If they are expecting their audience to believe its truth because they said it, then yes, it does matter. That is why a journalist will completely lose their reputation if they edit (or fabricate) a video to make their subject look a certain way. If a journalist presents a video clip of something, one should put at least a little more stock in it, than say if Glenn Beck or Michael Moore present it. The latter two may show you a video that is completely true, but the chances that they edited it to present the subject in a way that is not the whole truth is somewhat higher.

‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Lets keep in mind that these cable channels are part news / part programming. Do not confuse Olbermann or Beck as "journalists" or news anchors... they're more along the lines of editorialists, and on the Programs side of the channel.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.